Big Megapixel Camera in 2014

[bdunbar79]

Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.

Bear in mind that they led the sensor race by a country mile a while back. They have just been ignoring that side of things and are now paying the price. Lets just hope the lesson sticks. What Sony and Nikon have found is obviously not the end of it, we are only seeing the first stage of what I hope will be ever improving quality. I just hope that when Canon do eventually offer us something it will not just be more of what we have been offered recently.

I've been trying hard to follow the science behind the high ISO noise / low ISO noise difference that seems to be the key to this. It seems that Canon have been chasing the high ISO dream which would never be my choice.
[/quote]

I'm not sure Canon is paying any price, as they lead DSLR sales.

 

[dafrank]

I fully understand that something like the 1Dx will be perfect for some, all I want is for Canon to consider both sides which at the moment they are not doing.

So what would be in it for the customer? I would hope:
1. At least one "native" UWA of much better quality vs size/cost than SLR UWAs (why are Leica WAs so compact yet highly rated?). Possibly tilt/shift.
-h

Just to let you know a little detail about the Leica wide angles. They are always small and sometimes light in comparison to all wide angles for SLR cameras of any sort, because they are designed totally differently; they are true wide angles in design, while SLR and DSLR wides are "retrofocus" designs - reverse telephotos in effect. Take a telephpoto lens, look through the front to the rear and what you see is the type of field effect that a retrofocus wide angle will yield. This design is necessary because of the mirror inherent in single lens reflex design and the extra space it takes up between the back of the lens and the sensor; it imposes a design requirement to achieve a wide angle of view that makes a "true wide angle design" like Leica's impossible to use, because those are designed for a camera in which their rearmost elements can be situated very, very close to the sensor itself. This allows them to be very small in size compared to SLR lenses, but also introduces some optical problems of their own when using digital sensors, rather than film. Leica and others have done a very good job with these designs and the results speak for themselves. But, Canon cannot make their DSLR lenses that small; such a design would have to defy the currently understood laws and limitations of optical design.

Regards,
David

 

[jrista]

Canon isn't ignoring their minority customer base. I think they have heard loud and clear, they simply need time to produce a compelling product.

Bear in mind that they led the sensor race by a country mile a while back.

Is that not exactly what I was saying?

They have just been ignoring that side of things and are now paying the price. Lets just hope the lesson sticks.

Canon is paying a price? What price? They are the world's top camera seller, top in DSLRs. They make more money on camera sales than any other company, including Nikon and Sony.

What lesson has Canon learned? That sticking to their guns in a tough economy where garnering sales growth is difficult, and banking their money for more prosperous times (such as, oh, I dunno...2013 where markets are clearly recovering?) is a financially sound decision and has kept them in a profitable position, while many of their competitors, including Sony, are deeply in debt?

Canon is doing exceptionally well, all things considered. A double-dip recession, multiple ecological disasters, slowing growth in the DSLR market at large, etc. etc. And they are STILL making bank! Canon is not paying any price, and if they have learned any lesson, it's that what they are doing works from a business standpoint, and IS satisfying the vast majority of their customers.

It is only the wild notions of the crazy wackos on sites like CR, DPR, FR, etc. who insist that low-ISO IQ is the SOLE factor in total camera quality that could possibly indicate that Canon is doing anything wrong, that they are paying any kind of price, and that they have lessons to learn for their "bad" behavior. Get your head out of your hole, poke it above the horizon, and look around...Canon is kicking ass on nearly every front.

What Sony and Nikon have found is obviously not the end of it, we are only seeing the first stage of what I hope will be ever improving quality. I just hope that when Canon do eventually offer us something it will not just be more of what we have been offered recently.

I've been trying hard to follow the science behind the high ISO noise / low ISO noise difference that seems to be the key to this. It seems that Canon have been chasing the high ISO dream which would never be my choice.

It may never be your choice, however there are statistically many more photographers who need higher shutter speeds at lower light levels than those who need perfect low-ISO IQ. The only real fields of photography where ISO 100 is the staple of their photography are landscape and architectural photographers, who are able to pop their camera on top of a super-sturdy tripod, pop in a remote shutter release, carefully compose and focus their scene, then sit back and open the shutter. Nearly every other field of photography requires either hand-holding a camera with wider-angle lenses, or using extremely long supertelephoto lenses on or off tripods, where very high shutter speeds are essential to getting the shot, which in turn requires high ISO. Reducing noise at high ISO, and expanding the range of high ISO settings, is what the majority of photographers need, what they asked for, and what Canon gave them.

I don't deny Canon could certainly improve their low ISO IQ. Their banding noise has become their bane at low ISO. A move to a smaller fabrication process will give them the die space they need to slap on some additional circuitry and solve that problem, so the real question is whether Canon IS going to move to a smaller process. Chipworks recently showed some photos of a Canon 180nm process that used copper interlinks and lightpipe technology, so it is clear that Canon is at the very least WORKING on moving to a new process. Whether they do, and whether doing so allows Canon to continue offering the things their customers really need, remains to be seen.

 

[jrista]

If share price is an indication of how a company is doing! Then Canon are very well served by not bothering, so far, with a high megapixel wider dynamic range 135 format sensor, well certainly much better than Nikon.

http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/07/nikon-stock-plummets-19-biggest-drop-since-1985/

"Businessweek writes that the price drop was the largest single day decline in Nikon’s stock since 1985. It happened after the company cut its profit forecast due to decreasing demand and plummeting prices."

Kind of makes you think the D800 should have been priced at $3500, rather than $3000. It's a tough market out there, but undercutting yourself so much that you can no longer maintain profits is counter-intuitive. I'd even offer that people would be interested in the D800 even if it was more expensive than the 5D III, as there is no question it is the king of IQ in 35mm format.

All things considered, I a little bummed by this news. Competition is so critical for consumers...it leads to the kinds of innovations that found their way into all the cameras released last year, and hopefully more this year. It would be great to see Nikon stock (and sales) pick up throughout the rest of the year. I'd rather not see Canon become an even larger player than it already is, or become a default monopoly...that would be bad (even though it is my chosen brand.) Competition is GOOD!

 

[motorhead]

Nikon were so far behind for so long they have ended up shooting themselves in the foot. But I don't believe that changes the gloomy outlook for pure stills orientated high end gear.

I've read in the last day or so that Nikon took 40 plus percent of the UK market in dSLR's last year. That's a pretty good batting average! I don't know how much of the total market is taken by the smaller players, but I'm prepared to bet that Canon cannot have done as well.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

I can't wait for some solid news on this bad boy!

 

[Photomoose]

I wish to weigh in on not the speculatation of a larger mpx camera, but my personal experiance and desire for Canon to join the party. I'm a professional wildlife and landscape photographer and have been so since 1974 which means I have seen alot of equipment between my eye and subject. I have been shooting side-by-side since their release both the 5d3 and D800 and Im torn right down the middle. Heres my take away:

1) I love the way the 5d3 feels in my hand and functions. Function and ease of use is close to the top of my list when choosing a camera. Maybe the best two features I like is the C# dial settings and ease of switching from Single shot to Al-servo with the push of programable button. On the D800 you need two hands and be somewhat of a contortionist.

2) Low light (high ISO) situations with wildlife is a daily issue for me and while both camps get excited about their products results the fact is at high ISO (lets just say 12,000 and up for discussion) give nothing better than a record shot or best use a small jpg for screen display only. I know, I know, I have seen and read others argue their results are simply amazing. I'm happy your happy. Lets move on.

3) Frame rate: The D800 is not the camera if high frame rate is important. It is simply slow and takes for ever to refresh, Period. The 5d3 is not much faster, but at least refreshes in less time. Personally unless I'm shooting hummingbird the 5d3 is just fine and in fact the percentage of OOF images with the 5d3 is very low compared to my 1dX. Most the bird life I photograph (and I'm not saying I'm a big birder) I have taken away some great images with the 5d3 that was just not possible with the D800. The good news for me is that most the wildlife I photograph I have never felt I needed 14 fps. I can do that with the 1dx, but OMG thats a lot of editing. Side bar: If you have ever been in Yellowstone photographing lets say a bear, there is likely to be at least a dozen or more photographers standing side by side with you and than the bear moves an ear. The sound of hundreds of frames per second that you hear always makes me chuckle. I digress...

4) When you talk about camera bodies and megapixels there must be some discussion of lenses. Again I use both worlds and you can show me all the graphs you want, but in my world IQ from both lines are close to equal. With that said I feel Canon has put a lot of R&D in recent years into their 'L' prime lenses. I simply love them! Sharpness is simply outstanding and heres the kicker, the weight! Not sure how they do it, but I think this is what keeps me with Canon. My go to lens is my Canon 600mm. I spent the last year with a Nikon 600mm lens and while the IQ is outstanding it weighs pounds more than the new Canon 600mm and when your my age and carrying it over your shoulder for miles while walking though river banks looking for moose it makes a huge difference. Not a fan of zoom lenses, I dont care who makes them.

5) Final point and this brings me back to this thread: Megapixel. I have looked over hundreds of shots with both cameras and megapixels matter. Again, you can show me all your graphs, but the end result is what brings home the bacon. Hands down the d800 IQ is hard to beat. I'm very pleased with the 5d3 (I still own two), but the 36megapixel is going knock your socks off.

My conclusion is that they both have advantages. If I was king my camera would feel and function like my 5d3 with 36 megapixels. Someday after I'm long gone there will be 80 megapixel camera that fit in you pocket with one lens that does it all with large format results, but until than and while I'm in the game all I ask Canon for is 36 (give or take a few). I think in todays technology there is no reason our DSLR's can't offer IQ that rivals medium format after all they did back in the days of film so why not digital. We are so close.

 

[strykapose]

Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr

And that is exactly why I believe most people will not benefit from a 36mp sensor, they are reversing their hoods and have polarisers permanently attached to their lens, often even indoors. High MP sensors demand the best of technique to realise their potential, and, as has been pointed out, a 5D MkIII with a 24-70 f2.8 MkII actually realises more resolution than a D800 with the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 anyway, 18mp to 15mp, even on a bench test.

 

[pedro]

Well, the big MP could materialize pretty soon according to the last rumored news ;-) Not my cup of tea, but lots of pro's sure would be delighted.

 

[Sporgon]

Seeing that picture of the D800 has reminded me of just what an ugly sucker it is.

It's pretty clear that the designer must have been having some issues with Nikon so he decided to take the p***

I know it doesn't necessarily affect the performance, but in most thing I have generally found that if it looks right it probably is right.

 

[bardamu]

Not sure if this is the right place for this, the value of high MPs has been discussed in several different threads lately. But I thought this was a very cool real-world example of where having high MPs and high `croppability' is valuable. He obviously wasn't anticipating this to happen. Cool photo indeed.

http://blogs.reuters.com/fullfocus/2012/11/30/best-photos-of-the-year-2012/#a=21

Admittedly, you need decent MP and strong AF in this sort of case, which is asking a lot.

 

[strykapose]

Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr

And that is exactly why I believe most people will not benefit from a 36mp sensor, they are reversing their hoods and have polarisers permanently attached to their lens, often even indoors. High MP sensors demand the best of technique to realise their potential, and, as has been pointed out, a 5D MkIII with a 24-70 f2.8 MkII actually realises more resolution than a D800 with the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 anyway, 18mp to 15mp, even on a bench test.

I would like to point out that I shoot Canon. That D800E belongs to a friend of mine that went shooting with me. The filter is not a polarizer, it is an ND filter and I highly doubt that it's permanently attached since its a 10-stop. The hood is reversed because his camera was in his bag and I needed something to test focus since I'd dropped my nifty-fifty earlier, so I used his camera.
Now to the point of mp's...when I compare my Mk3 photos to his D800E after taking identical landscape shots on the same tripod with the same (and newest...Mk2) focal length lenses, his D800E photo out-resolves my Mk3. IMHO, I dislike the D800E's colors and user interface compared to the Mk3, as I'm able to quickly setup and shoot while he's still fumbling with this buttons.
I'm not here to create an argument nor to bash anyone. I just added the caption because I was expecting Canon's higher MP camera to arrive sooner.
Like Photomoose had mentioned, I'm also basing my judgement not on speculation, but by personal comparisons of both cameras and I have to admit, I may love my Mk3 but the D800E has knocked my resolution socks off a while ago and I'm currently running around bare-feet until Canon matches or surpasses.